The United States government really does care about BTC and has a strong interest in killing it, because BTC enables international money transfers outside the banking network. The United States government enjoys de facto control over the interbank network, which it uses to bully countries which it doesn't like (for example, you can't transfer money to a bank in Iran).
It is therefore entirely plausible that the current DDOS attack on BTC is mounted by agencies of the US government. It has the motive, it has the means. In the absence of evidence about the identity of the attacker, the US government is the #1 suspect.

No one has ever proven or even credibly suggested that Windows or OSX is easier to use than Linux

I'll prove it to you right here, right now.

1: Procedure to use Windows
Go into computer store, buy computer, take it home, turn it on. Wait for it to boot.You are now using Windows.

2: Procedure to use Linux
Go into computer store, buy computer, take it home, turn it on. Find out where to download a Linux distro from. Download enough to do network install. Burn it on a CD. Boot from the CD. Select installation options...

Need I continue?

And yes, I do realise that isn't what you meant, but the proof it still valid, and explains why Windows has approximately 100 times as many users as GNU/Linux on the desktop, and will have for the foreseeable future.

elkbuntu writes: Koha is a NZ project started by a small rural library 12 years ago, the project delivers a respected open source library system that is used globally. They are under threat of being bullied out of their name by a company that wants to close the source. They are seeking support to help fight the trademark threat that they now face.

Posted
by
kdawson
on Thursday September 23, 2010 @08:29AM
from the no-problem dept.

schliz writes "Free software activist Richard Stallman has called for the end of the 'war on sharing' at the World Computer Congress in Brisbane, Australia. He criticized surveillance, censorship, restrictive data formats, and software-as-a-service in a keynote presentation, and asserted that digital society had to be 'free' in order to be a benefit, and not an attack. Earlier in the conference, Stallman had briefly interrupted a European Patent Office presentation with a placard that said: 'Don't get caught in software patent thickets.' He told journalists that the Patent Office was 'here to campaign in favor of software patents in Australia,' arguing that 'there's no problem that requires a solution with anything like software patents.'"

Neither the post, nor the article linked, tell us much. "Open Source" just says that some people can read the source code. It doesn't tell us:

Who can read the source (licensees only?)

What you're allowed to do with the source

"Open source" doesn't mean "public domain". Somebody still owns the copyright, and can make permission to copy the source conditional on acceptance of a license. Then the terms of that license are all-important.